Naturalizing social relations from biological discourses

Naturalizing social relations from biological discourses is a historical construction already denounced by several feminist biologists (^{Fausto-Sterling, 2002}; ^{Haraway, 1995}; ^{Keller, 2006}), in which women and men are placed in distinct and unequal positions. It is necessary to question such discourses since for being originated in an “authoritative” and privileged place such as that of professors, they reinforce truth regimes.

When reading the excerpt presented in the interview (^{Schatten & Schatten, 1983}), Bertha’s discourse enunciates the machismo found in descriptions of that time. She mentions:

I can see that this is a description from 1983 and we have changed this a lot, this has already been changed in books [...] this description, nowadays, it is not like that anymore, you know? It changed a lot [...]. Then, well, from the date, I imagine that [...] in (19)83 [...], surely, this issue was much stronger, you know, differences, than it is today. This does not mean it does not exist today, but I think that we have seen great change, but more change is needed³ (Bertha).

Such discourses, despite the professor’s denial, are in circulation. For example, textbook analysis in the biology area has shown that the active role of the egg is rarely contemplated in those books (^{Swiech et al., 2019}). In addition, videos found on YouTube portray the fecundation process in a stereotyped way, gametes as women and men, for instance (^{Nettleton, 2015}). The same occurs in other educational materials made available on the education digital platform of the state of Paraná, to be used by teachers (Ferreira & Heerdt, 2020). Those studies are counter discourses to the idea that such unequal descriptions are something from the past, and that “do not exist today”, as reported by Bertha.

Portinho uses an analogy that disseminates machismo, when he says that female animals (and women) are more “selective”, more “expensive” since they ovulate once a month, and therefore, do not have several partners:

[...] this even explains why women in general, not women, but female beings in general, are more selective than men. I even joke, you see, that... the man’s sperm is very cheap, isn’t it? And what limits men, for example, male beings, in general, regarding reproduction is their limited access to females. And what limits women from having several..., is exactly the fact that they ovulate once a month only. Then, I use the analogy that men are cheap, while women are much more expensive [...] (our emphasis) (Portinho).

Such discourse situates monogamy as a female/women’s biological aspect. However, the definitions of ideal behavior, the way relationships and sexualities are lived are historically built discourses according to the imposed culture. On the other hand, the discourse naturalizes the idea that male animals (and men) do not have this alleged “selectivity”, and thus, are seen as naturally polygamic, “stallions”, for producing a larger number of gametes, and, therefore, their limited access to females is the only obstacle to their continuous reproduction.

The (re)production of such discourses of selective female/women in science is discussed by Angela ^{Saini (2018}, p. 121), who exemplifies it with articles that present the same discourse as Portinho’s, which ascribe the quality of monogamy to women and that of polygamy to men: “men are naturally polygamic and are only fighting against nature when they undertake long-standing relationships. Women are monogamic and always seek the perfect partner”. In scientific discourses presented throughout history and defended by scientists such as Charles Darwin, narratives are found that reinforce “[...] men in indiscriminate search for any woman, so that they increase their changes of generating the highest number of children; while women try to avoid undesirable male attention and seek to find the most qualified father for their offspring” (^{Saini, 2018}, p. 121). Discourses like these articulate with the “expensive women and cheap men” analogy uttered by Portinho. Thus, joining the biological and social discourses, among others, ends up supporting power relations that reinforce women as “naturally” maternal and faithful and men driven by polygamy toward sexual practices.

Under the perspective of Portinho’s discourse, he agrees with the unequal narratives of fertilization and applies them when describing other types of behavior: “I think that ecologically, in terms of evolution, this difference between the spermatozoid and the egg, in fact, reflects all types of behavior in the animal kingdom”, reinforcing passive female and active male behavior. Discourses are constituted into practices (^{Foucault, 2008}) and build up subjects, thus, it is important to question and reflect upon what kind of subjects and practices such discourses about female and male, women and men, have been built up in our society.

When reading and analyzing the excerpt from ^{Gelstein et al. (2011}), Portinho did not criticize the knowledge produced or the methodology, but reinforced the research discourse, using the hormone reduction evidenced to explain the male “self-interested” behavior:

Ok, then I think that the core of this excerpt number two is the fact that women’s tears are a chemosignal that reduces arousal in men. Well, I find it sad, because this shows that deep down men are quite self-interested. They want women, really want them for something more sexual, because if the woman is emotionally distressed […] it kind of shows that the man is not really interested, it only reduces his sexual desire (Portinho).

^{Rohden (2008}, p. 147) observed that there is “a perspective so radically centered on chemical messengers that many other phenomena are seen as embedded in them”. The science and biology discourses are “powerful” in the institution of truths, and to achieve that, they join other discourses, such as those in the medicine, psychology, and pharmacy areas, for example, building up a network that strengthen truth regimes, such as those that justify men’s aggressiveness and the idea of sex driven men due to the testosterone action.

A relevant reflection proposed by ^{Tramontano (2017}, p. 180) is that scientific discourses about testosterone join molecules to gender stereotypes: “it is impossible to separate the molecule-testosterone, neutral (regarding values), from the male essence-testosterone, a cultural construct, not only because there is no absolute neutrality in science, but because scientific dissemination unify both connotations”. Therefore, such discourses circulate in social, cultural, and science dissemination environments all the time, and might be accepted as the truth or rejected.

The discourses put forward reinforce the naturalization of self-interested men leaving their genes, monogamy, and passiveness to women, that is, active and polygamic men defended by biological discourses. Such utterances created by the modern science and reproduced everywhere keep distinct and unequal places for men and women.

Sexism structures science in the production processes and their products (^{Maffía, 2014}; ^{Schiebinger, 2001}, ²⁰⁰⁸). From its origins, science considered women as objects of investigation, determining their psychological and biological characteristics, and establishing a hierarchical position to them in relation to men (^{Maffía, 2014}). By discursive and non-discursive means, a discourse describing emotional, sentimental, and maternal women was created and reinforced by science and discourses from different areas, building up truth regimes about women and men. It is interesting to think that the stereotypes of women that the science highlighted were coincidently used as obstacles to their access to the scientific activity (^{Maffía, 2014}; ^{Schiebinger, 2001}).

Dichotomies, where do we find the diversity rainbow?

Keeping the dichotomies of discourses does not allow individuals to look at the world outside this axis, which is a domination axis in which, at times, whatever is taken as male is praised in detriment of the female, and at other times the opposite might occur.

The participant Caramuru presented the active spermatozoid versus passive egg relation: “We might think here that the spermatozoid plays the active role, playing the role, doing stuff, while the egg is kind of still there, waiting everything happen, maybe”. Such discourses are found in the history of the fertilization knowledge construction, and they have been criticized from the women entrance in science and the feminist critique to science. ^{Keller (2006}, p. 17) introduced other discourses such as the “maternal effect in fertilization”, which have described the egg’s active role since 1983. ^{Keller (2006)} observed that this discourse production was only possible because researchers investigated the egg’s action.

The participant Antonieta articulates two utterances in her discourses, she criticizes the fragment and circulates other truths; however, she still keeps dichotomies:

[...] really, the sperm puts, it puts up a projection and it is like a race, it must get there, but the situation is in fact that it needs to survive, you see? It has to survive, that is why it covers the egg as fast as possible, because around it there are 500 others wanting the same thing, aren’t there? Then here it is implied that: ‘ah, the egg is there ‘reach me, please’, when in fact it is the opposite, ‘help, I need to survive, I must get there’ (author’s emphasis) (Antonieta).

This participant’s discourse shows stereotypes when compares the situation with a race and describes the spermatozoid as aware of its need to survive. In addition, keeps the egg’s invisibility, describing the spermatozoid as the protagonist of this fertilization narrative, that is, it “competes” in a race against “500 others” and is aware that it must win it to survive. According to ^{Tramontano (2017}, p. 181), “ascribing awareness and coherent reasons to the organism is one of the greatest parables of modern biology”. Whenever the egg does not appear in this description, even if it plays an active role in this process, it is not evidenced by the discourse.

At another time, when trying to describe the fertilization process in a more egalitarian way, the participants Antonieta and Bertha produce utterances in which the egg is aggressive. Antonieta states:

Well, here the author shows the spermatozoid as if it is in a rodeo, or in a party, or in the middle of the ocean. It shots a harpoon, it stabs the egg [...]. The problem is that I know the story, and the story is not like that, see? In fact, it is the egg that hugs the spermatozoid and internalize it, almost forcing it, isn’t it? (author’s emphasis) (Antonieta).

The participant Bertha explains:

Actually, nowadays we know that it is not like that, don’t we? Currently, we know that the egg grabs the spermatozoid, yes, the egg, then [...] in truth, the female gamete is in charge of almost everything [...]. So, the female gamete calls, and it is the whole female gamete that allows its entrance [spermatozoid] or not, then the spermatozoid might express whatever, but the situation is really commanded by the female gamete (Bertha).

The participants’ discourses criticize the metaphor and description, but there is an inversion of the roles, the egg is masculinized and becomes the aggressive gamete, which almost forcefully grabs the spermatozoid. Discourses evidencing this “inversion of roles” when describing the egg’s active role also appeared in other studies throughout the construction of the human fertilization knowledge (^{Martin, 1991}).

Biology supports binarism with discourses that mark sexual differences, distinguishing hormones, chromosomes, genitals, cells, molecules, and organs, as female and male, and many times does not consider the existence of “variations in each of these physiological aspects that affect deeply the individual experience of gender and sexuality” (^{Fausto-Sterling, 2002}, p. 62). Thus, whatever does not fit the binary structure is considered pathological or outside the norm. “The imposition of the gender norm has a social non-scientific motor” (^{Fausto-Sterling, 2002}, p. 26).

Discourses that defy the norms of the two-sex system circulate (^{Fausto-Sterling, 2002}) when, for example, we use the language of people who have wombs and those who have a monthly period, instead of women, this language seeks to include different bodies and genders. In the participants’ discourses, however, the binary and dual idea of women that produce eggs and men producing spermatozoids is kept. This discourse fixes and universalizes bodies and is committed to the idea of the existence of two sexes only (Fausto-Sterling, 2002), thus it ignores the diversity rainbow.

The participant Portinho resumes again the use of hormones to justify animals’ behavior:

[...] There is an interesting study, for example, showing that female lions in general, they choose male animals with longer and darker manes, because this is related to a higher testosterone level, which increases aggressiveness, so, in this case, size matters, and strength matters to defend their territory [...] (Portinho).

The participant reproduces the passive female/aggressive male dualism, with a language marked by humanization of the animals’ behavior, as if the animals were aware of their “choices” and justifying aggressiveness by referring to the testosterone action. In addition, the discourse places testosterone only in male individuals, evoking the idea of “sexual hormones” observed at the beginning of the studies on these substances, which was discarded (reluctantly) later, when the presence of such hormones was admitted in female and male organisms (^{Saini, 2018}; ^{Tramontano, 2017}). According to Tramontano (²⁰¹⁷, p. 180), “in practice, these hormones convert easily into one another”, and this delimitation and separation is not as strict as it appears in certain scientific discourses.

The scientific language was built up based on the men/women dichotomy and the descriptions in the biology area insistently show the action of such dichotomy always marking male and female and qualifying the formers as active and aggressive and the latter as passive and patient (^{Keller, 2006}; ^{Schiebinger, 2001}). To “scape” gender relations we might be trapped in a situation of only praising female beings or the female portion, thus inverting male and female roles, which was seen in some of the utterances produced by the participants such as Bertha: “[...] Couldn’t it be said differently? It is the female that chooses the strongest male because she wants to guarantee that her genes will perpetuate. So [...] these two excerpts are based on the men’s view, the strongest macho”; and in Nísia’s discourse:

Again, in this part of the text, the issue is clear, the male is valued, while the female is despised, but, as I said, there are many other examples [...] of the opposite, the female protagonism in the animal world and also males, not in this style (Nísia).

Both discourses criticize the descriptions and try to build up a new interpretation, but reinforce dichotomy, seeking to “solve” the sexism found in the descriptions, placing the female being as the protagonist.

The dichotomy reinforcement was also uttered by the participants Caramuru and Portinho, respectively: “[...] Because there are many others, why not mentioning the grasshopper, for example, the female grasshopper⁴eats the male’s head after copulating, doesn’t it?”; “[...] I gave some examples here, in the previous answers that there are several cases showing that the woman, you see, the female is empowered” (author’s emphasis). Not only does the participant Portinho reinforce dicothomy, but he also directs a humanized gaze towards the animals, when describing the female as “empowered”, an adjective that is characteristic of the historical, social, and cultural context we live in, where “women’s empowering” discourses circulate. In addition, the female being is displaced from a position of passiveness to a position of aggressiveness, as in the example given by Caramuru, the discourses convey the message that there are female beings that present “macho” behavior.

The participant Portinho builds up a discourse that reinforces sexism and the stereotypes of passive female and aggressive male by humanizing animal behavior and presenting other examples that are not aligned to the feminist critique:

Because, in general, in the animal kingdom, just like Darwin mentions here, females remain there just watching, and the male ones, the troglodyte, fight and their heads, even sometimes killing each other to…to choose a female (Portinho).

In his discourse, machos are placed in nature as “troglodyte” fighting and killing each other for the female, while she keeps “watching” the scene as the final prize to be given to the winning macho. ^{Foucault (2008}, p. 55) treats discourses as “practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak” thus such discourses might justify male aggressiveness and violence and placing women under the influence of this type of behavior, which naturalizes violence against women/female beings, reinforcing their subordination role as the prize of a conquer.

The participants’ discourses reproduce the exchange of subjects, according to ^{Harding (1993}), this is not the objective of feminist investigations, that is, to substitute a truth that praises men/male and their deeds with a history of women/female and their deeds. Both are considered damaging constructions, keeping this men/women or male/female dichotomy when describing the world ignores other possibilities of knowledge and interpretation as observed by ^{Roughgarden (2004}), that is, a rainbow of possibilities.

Humanizing cells and molecules, is that necessary?

The participant Nísia recalls the “harpoon” metaphor presented in the interview excerpt (^{Schatten & Schatten, 1983}), and utters the position in which the use of this metaphor places gametes: “This is horrible, isn’t it? It sounds as if the spermatozoid is hmm, I don’t know, a hunter [...] as if it holds this harpoon, this thing, and hunts the target, that is the egg, as if it is a target”. The participant notices that the language ascribes other meanings to the excerpt, the metaphor used describes the aggressiveness of the spermatozoid, and produces another metaphor, which is the egg as a “target”. In agreement with ^{Martin (1991}, p. 7), we also question: “Why don’t we call it ‘building up a bridge’ or ‘throwing a rope’ instead of shooting a harpoon? Harpoons stab the prays and injure or kill them, while the filament only attaches to the egg”.

Portinho, when reading the human fertilization excerpt, builds up an acritical discourse and reinforces stereotypes, by mentioning other biology examples:

[...] and then, the female has to deal with the situation while the male walks away [...] and when you look into some species that are monogamic, let’s say the parrot, for example, those that keep as a couple and, in theory, remain together until death, anyway, we know that some DNA tests have shown that many male beings are betrayed by their partners, you see? They have offspring with other male parrots [...] (author’s emphasis) (Portinho).

This participant’s discourse ascribes behaviors and stereotypes that reflect sociocultural values such as the maternal female that “has to deal with the situation”, while the male partner goes away without bringing up the offspring, and male parrots that brought up offspring of other male animals after their partners cheated on them. This reflects the social and cultural construct around monogamy and polygamy. Such humanization in the language used aligns the animal behavior to the human society standards based on western values, and the social and cultural human organization at the biological and natural level, as if animals were aware of this type of behavior.

Bertha recognizes cultural characteristics being ascribed to animals and points out the historical context as a factor influencing such description:

[...] first, ‘Philanderer males lose patience’. Does the species know what patience is? [...] two things called my attention: the way it was written in a humanized style and evoking human male feelings, that is, men’s feelings. A biological description in which you can clearly see that a man is describing, and quite humanized, that is, a description with [...] feelings, human and sexist values. But then, [...] I think that at Charles Darwin’s time [...] it was like that, quite extreme, you see? But I think they should change these writings’ wording for our time (Bertha).

Feminist epistemologies defend localized knowledge such as ^{Haraway (1995}), which is seen in Bertha’s discourse when commenting on the scientist’s context. ^{Saini (2018}, p. 27) highlighted that Darwin: “…who was a man of his time. His traditional opinions about women’s place in society not only guide his scientific work, but also those of many other biologists of that era”, confirming the role of the social context of each scientist in shaping their posture in relation to women. The participant’s discourse emphasizes the knowledge production context, but is not free from criticism and queries regarding the language used, recognizing the sexism observed in the descriptions, and uttering the need for a change when she says “they should change these writings’ wording for our time”.

Caroline Kennard and Eliza Burt Gamble expressed their position against Darwin’s and other evolutionist scientists’ ideas, at that time, but most of their critique was ignored, as pointed out by ^{Saini (2018}, p. 32) “it is difficult to visualize the directions that science could have taken if, on those crucial days when Charles Darwin was developing his evolution theories, the society were not as sexist as it was”. While “currently” we still live in such sexist and prejudiced societies, there are also resistance discourses circulating with more prominence, and there is the surveillance from different feminist movements that promote resistance to power centers.

The participant Caramuru stated:

This is again the thing about a charmer man and the woman that wants to be charmed, and the use of animal examples to explain how natural this is, right? [...] you may get several fragments that interest you and create a narrative from them, I think that people do that a lot in biology [...]. So, I think that you can [...] try to use some of these little examples that serve your purpose and the part that does not interest you, you can throw away and try to naturalize things that happen in gender relations, which are not natural, which are social constructions, can’t you? (Caramuru).

The discourse points to the naturalization of gender social relations which might happen when some “little examples” are used. The participant refers to Darwin; however, this is not a mere example, conversely, he is considered by many the “father of biology”, and the knowledge produced by that scientist held (and still holds) a truth power and have influenced a lot of other knowledge. This discourse does not problematize the presence of such knowledge in sciences, since other examples could be used by the professors or scientists, thus ignoring the effects that this specific discourse has produced from the time it started to circulate and that it still produces, which naturalizes and creates gender relations.

Metaphors used by ^{Darwin (2014}) and ^{Dawkins (2001}), such as charmers, good fathers, patience, conquer, and lack of concern are mechanisms that, through language, reinforce social and cultural stereotypes of men and women, naturalizing them. ^{Saini (2018}, p. 28) emphasized that the context in which Darwin’s theories were developed was sexist, the discourse of women being inferior beings was accepted as the truth, “when this type of prejudice and evolution biology got together, the result was a particularly toxic mixture that poisoned the scientific research for decades”, not only do they appear in the knowledge produced by Darwin, but also in the production of many other scientists.

In another discourse put forward by Portinho, the subjectivism exchange is linked to other utterances, in which aggressive and masculine females appear “cheating” on their male partners:

Yes, once I saw a great documentary about the penguin march, and it showed that when it is the reproductive season [...] and there are a lot more females than males, the females literally fight one to another to dispute the male animal they are interested in, then the game is inverted. The male penguin stays there as a good fridge penguin waiting and watching the two female animals fight so that he mates with the one that survive the fight (author’s emphasis).

At another point in the discourse, he states:

[...] I think the name of this bird is Jaçanã, a species that keeps a different role, that is, the female bird mates with several different males, and the male birds are the ones taking care of the eggs, and that’s okay, the male bird accepts it, you see? And then the ecological explanation to that is that it is better be cheated and stay here taking care of the offspring, in a safe habitat, [...] and seeing her there copulating with other male birds (author’s emphasis) (Portinho).

These discourses show that when females of any species are put in a relation of power, they are ascribed characteristics which are considered masculine, such as aggressiveness. Regarding the male penguin behaving as a “good fridge penguin” means that it plays roles socially ascribed to the female of the species, that is, passiveness and waiting for things to happen. In the discourse, animals are described as if they were aware of such actions: females “fighting” to dispute the male animal, the male individual waiting for the female that will win the dispute, and the male bird that accepts “cheating” from the female partner and takes care of the offspring to enjoy a safe habitat.

The discourse of aggressive male and passive female animals was/is recurring in biology, and was also seen, for example, in the primatology area briefly explored by ^{Schiebinger (2001}). That author observed that mainly in the period preceding the World War II, discourses in that area tended to reinforce stereotypes of “alpha” males, which were aggressive and dominant, and female individuals exclusively dedicated to maternity, who were seen as “sweet, non-competitive creatures, who traded sex and reproduction for protection and food” (^{Schiebinger, 2001}, p. 244). Such discourses articulate with that produced by Portinho:

One example I love to give in class, which always provokes a lot of discussion, I mean, nice discussion, is the example of our closest relatives, you see? Chimpanzees, bonobos, chimpanzees are really sexists, that alpha macho thing, several female partners, if the partner does not want to mate, there is even a kind of rape, and when the alpha macho suspects that an offspring is not his, he goes there and commits feminic…[feminicide], that is, hmm, infanticide (author’s emphasis) (Portinho).

This discourse evidences the ways through which, by using our language we ascribe meaning to the behavior of other animals, which they “not even imagine”, such as a ‘super sexist’ chimpanzee, rapist, and the whole narrative built up in the discourse.

The participant Antonieta reinforces the humanized descriptions of animal behavior in her discourse:

This is what we really see in biology, animals acting like animals, and then we notice that this unstoppable search for the species survival. […] what I see here is what really, naturally occurs. There is the fight, yes, in my opinion the observation of the origin of species happens every day, at least in the animal kingdom, maybe not in human society, because human society works in a different way (author’s emphasis) (Antonieta).

In another excerpt, the participant stated: “look, philanderer males, aren’t they? Then, put those animals in their place, they must be philanderers, they must call the female partner’s attention”. In this discourse, the participant reinforces the humanized adjectives that were used in the descriptions, such as “philanderers”, as the animals’ “natural” behavior. In addition, she disregards that these descriptions are human interpretations, put forward by scientists, when she states that this is “what we really see in biology”, also uttering a decontextualized type of science. The biology discourses show such a naturalized language regarding male and female that this ends up unnoticed, but, on the other hand, when gender discussions are the agenda, this gaze can be directed to the descriptions, as seen in Antonieta’s speech since there are moments in which she criticizes the descriptions.

^{Schiebinger (2001}, p. 274) highlighted that when we pay attention to the ways we use language and employ metaphors, “we might critically judge the images that structure our understanding of nature”. Metaphors are sometimes used, mainly by us, educators, with the purpose of facilitating the understanding of whatever we are teaching. However, it is necessary to be careful since ‘metaphors are not innocent devices used to spice the texts” (^{Schiebinger, 2001}, p. 274-275), they convey meanings and trigger discursive and non-discursive effects.

The participant Medeiros built up the following discourse:

I, particularly, do not like when you use adjectives or interpretations trying to humanize the situation [...]. But I think that in biology, we must understand the behavior as it is, as raw as it gets, without trying to extrapolate to human society, because it might sound like something else. Then, when you humanize an answer [...] you might distort what it means in biological terms (Medeiros).

The participant criticizes the adjectives used in the description, but her discourse evidences the (illusory) possibility of developing a “pure”, neutral knowledge that would provide understanding of a phenomenon “as it is, as raw as it gets”. This is the type of discourse that ignores the social character of science as a human construction, which is also composed of the scientists’ interpretations. They might seek some surveillance, some care, to avoid resorting to stereotypes when producing such knowledge, but, even so, this is not a “raw” understanding of natural phenomena. It will be an interpretation, a discourse built up by scientists who speak from their situation, knowledge is situated and, therefore, partial (^{Haraway, 1995}).

The participant Antonieta proposed another discourse:

[...] In fact, there they humanized that animal’s attitude. They are humanizing, ‘lost patience’, ‘no longer wanted to wait for the female’. In fact, this is because they did not match, he might not have enough hormones, he might not have exhaled enough hormone and thus did not call the female animal’s attention, the female could have had her attention drawn by another male individual (Antonieta).

Such construction of a new discourse, evidenced by the participant, is related to the constructive role of the feminist epistemology (^{Longino, 1997}), which does not criticize knowledge only, but allows the construction of new discourses reaffirming and circulating other truths. Her discourse criticizes the humanization of that behavior and thinks of other possibilities, such as the hormone action in the interaction between the animals during courtship and reproduction, it seeks to interpret the animals’ behavior without ascribing social stereotypes, not placing male and female animals as men and women in opposition.

Beyond agreement, a critical look into science

The utterances presented were built up when the participants read and analyzed the excerpt of ^{Gelstein et al. (2011}) article on the effects of female tears on the testosterone levels in men’s bodies.

The participant Nísia criticized the research sampling and results:

This is impressive, isn’t it? This type of study [...]. That is, here it shows that they used three adult women and 24 men, there is a discrepancy in the sample already, then, I wouldn’t believe in this type of study. So, to show that men are not excited by women that cry and are fragile, there is a signal there [...] a type of reductionism that is unfavorable to the female gender (Nísia).

The discourse questions the knowledge produced and points out the stereotype of fragile women, which is reinforced by the research when ascribing a chemosignal to the biology of human beings. For having been published in a widely known scientific journal (Science), the research discourse enjoys a privileged position in a powerful and reliable place, even so the participant states that “I wouldn’t believe this type of study” for the sample discrepancy and the female reductionism practiced.

The participant Bertha referred to the article source, which was described just below the excerpt: “The thing here is that it’s from Science, isn’t it? [laugh] I will look for this study and check the total context because I found it a bit biased”. Her discourse emphasizes the reliability ascribed to the scientific journal, which provokes that many times biased and sexist studies go unnoticed to most critical looks and reinforce stereotypes and sexism even more intensely due to power and knowledge relations.

The participant Antonieta, adds to the criticism to the sample discrepancy, and also criticizes the homogeneity of the female being reinforced by the research methodology, she says:

[...] what calls my attention here is that they included 24 men and 3 women in the study, three donors. Why were there only three women? Should we think that women are so homogenous? Being a woman is as homogeneous as that? Guys, there are women of all kinds [...] this ‘n’ issue in the work really calls my attention and it seems to me a quite sexist ‘n’. Women are all the same, let’s get three then? How old are these three? [...] what kind of activity do they develop? Which phase of their period were they in when this was sampled? Then, it is as if it did not matter [...] (Antonieta).

The participant reflects upon the multiplicity of being women, moving from a discourse that understands women as a universal category to one that evokes other categories of women. The discourse this participant builds up also evidences the importance of a situated gaze as researcher and woman that she directs to the research.

The participant Caramuru articulates the research results to the social stereotype of fragile women and aggressive men, and the fact that this aggressiveness is ascribed to the testosterone hormone:

The thing of making a woman cry and say that [...] these tears reduce the man’s testosterone levels, as if it made the man less aggressive [...] that thing of woman’s frailty and that the man, [...], it seems that there is a trend to explain everything that men do based on the testosterone. Then it is, it is like... a free pass to do all kinds of shitty behavior [...] (Caramuru).

This discourse articulates with others historically built, which place in the hormones, more specifically testosterone, the base of men’s virility, strength, and heterosexuality. ^{Rohden (2008}, p. 134) highlighted “the idea that hormones determine everything, even our intelligence and our behavior in relation to the opposite sex, seems to gain more and more followers”. Thus, using hormones to explain men’s and women’s behavior is a recurrent discourse in science, one that has appeared since the beginning of studies on hormones.

^{Tramontano (2017}) explained that when ascribing the basis of differences between men and women to hormones, these molecules were gendered, the action of the so-called male and female sexual hormones starts to be understood according to social characteristics ascribed to women and men, “testosterone effects are fast and incisive, determining the aggressiveness and practicality ascribed to men, while estrogen acts more discretely and with less visibility, simulating the female passiveness and kindness” (^{Tramontano, 2017}, p. 167). ^{Saini (2018}, p. 34) discussed the association of hormones to behavior and exemplified with an article published in 1930, in which men that were subjected to hormonal treatment with testosterone reported feeling more vigorous and energetic, this type of discourse reinforced the idea that testosterone was linked to characteristics ascribed to men such as “aggressiveness, physical strength, superior intellect, and virility”. Research developed with women and the said female hormones also reinforced stereotypes of femininity, indicating that, due to the action of such hormones, women acted with greater sensitiveness and passiveness (^{Saini, 2018}).

The science critique led feminist epistemologist to denounce prejudiced knowledge and opened ways for the construction of new truths. The critical gaze and discourse by educators that are knowledge mediators, and by researchers that speak from an authority position, become acts of resistance with potential to destabilize discriminating structures that support and are supported by scientific discourses.